User talk:Bilorv/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

This archive is updated manually by Bilorv.

Archive created 02:20, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Episode tally

Re: change to Human episodes tally, reverted by yourself. [1] Is there a guide somewhere that states that the "No. of episodes" refers to the number aired, rather than the total number in the series? This seems strange to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.6.134.209 (talk) 21:17, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Template:Infobox television says for the number of episodes parameter, "The number of episodes released. This parameter should only be incremented when new episodes air or when a reliable source can confirm that an episode has finished production." There was a source saying that there would be 8 episodes in the series, but it was written before filming even began. It's okay to say "The series will consist of 8 episodes" in the body of the article (as was done), but this shouldn't be done in the infobox. — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 08:28, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks - I guess then that it should be fine to update Episode counts to at least the number of episodes that a standard TV guide goes up to - e.g. 2 weeks in advance — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.6.134.209 (talk) 16:01, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Humans

You were right the first time: Cast should be listed as per their credit order, not alphabetically. As per Template:Infobox television:

| starring                 = <!-- Organized by broadcast credit order, with new main cast added to the end of the list -->

Hopefully that's helpful. Alex|The|Whovian 08:55, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

@AlexTheWhovian: yep, that was helpful; I got a bit confused there. Now what order were the cast credited in? :P — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 09:28, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Linking Non-English Wikipedia

Few days ago i saw somewhere that we can link non-English pages in English Wikipedia by adding the two letter language prefix. I just can't remember the code. I want to link this German page https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rumpelstilzchen_(1955) here Rumpelstiltskin (1955 film) --Aero Slicer 11:03, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

@Aero Slicer: in this case, it isn't necessary. Look on the left hand side of your screen at Rumpelstiltskin (1955 film); at the bottom, there should be a "Languages" bar with "Deutsch" linked. Click on there and you will be taken to the German Wikipedia's version of the page. These links are controlled through Wikidata: see Q1396933.

However, to answer your question, the two letter prefix is the same as the two letter code in the URL of the page: it says "de.wikipedia.org", so the code to link to that article would be [[:de:Rumpelstilzchen (1955)]], which produces de:Rumpelstilzchen (1955). (You could pipe the link to change the text produced if it was necessary.) Help:Interwiki linking shows you how to link to other projects (e.g. Wiktionary), if you're interested, but these links aren't usually used in articles. — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 11:10, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Special Barnstar
	Hello, thank you for your replies to new editors on Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions. You are doing great work. Thanks again. Human3015Send WikiLove  21:37, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

archives - date of contributions

Hi Bilorv - thank you for your help with this: archives - date of contributions (Hi there, there are these bots that archive talk pages after 3 months of no activity in a thread. How can I as a user see when contributors posted their comment on a talk page? (This question refers to when they forgot to give a date - especially in Wikipedia's early days, editors did not sign their comments properly or add a timestamp). Thank you Elisanne (talk) 14:50, 28 July 2015 (UTC) - @Elisanne: I think the page history contains the information you're looking for. For instance, I can use the page history of this page to see when your post was made. In theory, all edits should be either (a) signed by the user or (b) signed automatically by a bot, but if neither of these is true then the page history will contain the time of the post. However, if the page you're looking at is an archive, this won't work – for instance, Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 366 only shows one edit made by a bot. You'd have to look at the original talk page the archive was from to see when a post was made. If this doesn't answer your question, could you please post a link to the page(s) you're looking at? — Bilorv(talk)(c)(e) 15:57, 28 July 2015 (UTC)) The problem I have is that ones your archive a talk page, the original talk page disappears or, rather, is filled up with recent discussions. Hence, there is no way for me to access the 'original' talk pages as they first appeared/grew, correct? I'm trying to sort through this talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:European_Union - I guess the only way for me to get the posts onto a timeline is by manually going through each thread and hoping that most of them are timestamped :-) Thank you very much for your explanation and help. Elisanne (talk) 13:27, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

@Elisanne: sorry for not responding sooner. It can be a pain to find posts that aren't timestamped, but the page history is not always too hard to look through. For instance, go to this page and use your browser's search function (usually by pressing Ctrl+F) to find the name of the section. (This works because when people press "[edit]" on a section of a page, the system will automatically add /* section name */ to the edit summary.) For instance, I can quickly see that "Humanitarian aid vs Development aid" was created in this edit and the most recent edit to it was this. This still requires some manual work, but isn't usually too much of a hassle. — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 13:02, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

The Big Bang Theory

It looks like the awards section has been moved off the main page to List of awards and nominations received by The Big Bang Theory. There has been a bit of an edit war as this sectioning gets worked out among editors who watchlist the page. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:40, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

@Liz: thank you for the explanation. I probably shouldn't have interfered, as I was too confused to understand what was happening. I did look at List of awards and nominations received by The Big Bang Theory but only glanced at the page history to see that it was created in March; it was also a page I had watchlisted, which wouldn't make any sense if it had been created while I was away. Of course, it was created in March but quickly redirected and only turned into a proper article recently. But that's tangential anyway. I had simply assumed that General Ization was self-reverting by accident, since their edit summary seemed to be addressing someone else and didn't say "self-revert" or "undoing after further consideration" or anything else I would personally have written when undoing myself on purpose. — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 17:51, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

I think it is perfectly normal to immediately think of reverting edits that remove large sections on an article, especially an article that is closely watched. That was my impulse when I saw it happening a few days ago. It was only when I compared the information being removed with the award page and saw it was identical did I understand what was going on. And, you're right, it's another lesson about the importance of accurate edit summaries! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:59, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

A brownie for you!

Hi Bilorv. Thanks for the extremely informative reply you left me at the Teahouse, and for being so thoughtful as to explain how to include code without it displaying. I went there to learn one new thing and ended up learning two new things. Well chuffed!! Please accept this brownie as a small token of my appreciation. Have a good day. tH0r (talk contribs) 13:35, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

edit summary

Hi Bilorv could you take a look at this I don't think it's a good idea that these details have been put in the edit summary.Regards. CV9933 (talk) 15:06, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

@CV9933: thanks for pointing that out. I contacted an oversighter and the edit summary appears to have been RevDel'd. — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 11:46, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes , that was a new one for me - thanks for getting it sorted. Regards. CV9933 (talk) 12:00, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Hatting

Please don't hatt ongoing discussions. People were talking and bridges were being built. If you're bored of the discussions, remove it from your watchlist. Cassianto^Talk 20:51, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

@Cassianto: I've replied here. I think I've fixed the problem but my intention was certainly not to try to discourage discussion. — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 20:54, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

No, and I didn't think it was. I replied there. Cassianto^Talk 21:01, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Brilliant Idea Barnstar
	Hatting long RfA comments. Small changes like this are important - they are the precursor to bigger ones. Thank you. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:35, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you

... for adding those 4 additional links to the Seedfeeder AfD discussion. I added three of the four to the article's EL section (I am not sure if the fourth is reliable or not), so hopefully these will help establish notability for the doubters. Thanks again! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 22:03, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Settling QI Editing Dispute

	Dispute Settler
	Thank you for stepping in to sort out this [[dispute. I entirely take the blame for letting this happen, and hope you can resolve it. GUtt01 (talk) 17:10, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Madame Tussauds

in my opinion the change I made was very very important because people should know that going to madame tussauds is a once in a life time opportunity — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.63.86.121 (talk) 13:55, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Explaining how to edit my user profile

Thank you so much Bilorv, I implemented the changes you suggested. Ed2696 (talk) 18:04, 19 October 2015 (UTC)ed2696

Actually you didn't, you added speedy tag to your talk page. Talk pages are not deleted. I've fixed all that for you. Thanks Supdiop (T🔹C) 18:08, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

		The Invisible Barnstar
		The judges would like to congratulate you for making the 2nd round being in the top 16! Although you didn't make the top 9 of Round 2, we appreciate that you participated in the 2nd Annual GA Cup. We hope to see you next year! MrWooHoo (talk) 23:47, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

illegal prime

I've restored the article illegal prime as it was a former featured article that someone turned into a redirect. Accordingly, I've also restored the link to that article that appeared in illegal number that you (correctly) removed recently. Just thought I'd explain this since you will likely get a note saying that something you did was reversed. Etamni | ✉ | ✓  02:54, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing that – I should have noticed it myself, really. — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 10:13, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

The Game

The Game (mind game), an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:10, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

ANI concerning Eaglestorm

Hi there. I just seen your edit here[[2]], and I just wanted to let you know that you forgot to add 'Support' to the beginning of your comments. Cheers. Boomer Vial^Holla 05:16, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for supporting my RfA

	Brianhe RfA Appreciation award
	Thank you for participating at my RfA. Your support was very much appreciated even if I did get a bit scorched. Brianhe (talk) 07:49, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Zeliot1

You messed op my talk earlier Zeliot1 (talk) 23:19, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Here this is for that edit in wozard101 about payement model movement p.s. that was me who put it there in the beginning i did not want to be blamed if it was wrong to do that so heres a brownie

MalnadachBot has given you a brownie! Brownies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a brownie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. †

minidragon 20:13, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Oppose British imperialism!

Dear Mr. "Bilorv",

In the name of Bilorv, the Benevolent, the Especially Merciful,

Have we not the greatest collection of online information ever to be created by us? Was it not Jimmy Wales who said "I have a dream, that one day no lazy millennial will have to ever go to a library"? "I think, therefore I wiki" has become the creed of our fine generation. Wikipedia articles should be judged on the content of their character, not on the native speaker skills of their editors. Those whom the gods wish to destroy, they first make mad. We must be mad, literally mad, to point blank deny the inclusion of yet more knowledge, and thrust upon ourselves a burden of unimaginable torture in pruning the very edges of this dear fine beloved encyclopaedia of universal knowingness, purely on the native English abilities of a speaker? Or of a source, or citation? Is this not Anglo-American imperialism on a grand scale, of which you are a small yet integral part? What makes the New York Times more reliable than France 24, or The Huff-Puff Post more reliable than RT? You claim to be against the racist rhetoric of UKIP: Stand up and oppose this xenophobic, neo-imperialist policy on the US/UK (i.e. imperialist)-dominated English Wikipedia with the utmost of haste.

Yours sincerely,

Mr. Liborbital (talk) 22:12, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Please avoid changing "Trump" to "Drumpf"

Hi Bilorv. In one of your recent edits, you changed the word "Trump" to "Drumpf". I assume that this was unintentional and caused by having the Drumpfinator extension enabled. To avoid this kind of mistake in the future, please disable the extension before editing articles that mention Trump. Thank you. —Granger (talk · contribs) 22:03, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

@Mx. Granger: Yes, it was from the extension; sorry about that, and thanks for fixing it. — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 16:14, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

@Mx. Granger:, and Bilorv, what is that extension? —usernamekiran(talk) 03:40, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

The Drumpfinator, originating from John Oliver's sketch Donald Trump, does an automatic find and replace for "Trump" with "Drumpf". — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 10:38, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Pinging Usernamekiran. — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 10:39, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

lolol. Does it also make only the visible changes? Like reading some news article that you cant edit? —usernamekiran(talk) 10:55, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Well you can edit news articles; for instance, in Chrome you can press Ctrl+Shift+I and then tamper with the HTML. But of course, the changes only apply to your display, not the news website's page. The Drumpfinator just replaces "Trump" with "Drumpf" whenever the former appears. — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 11:17, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Taskmaster reverts

Hi. I see you blanket reverted my edits to the Taskmaster article, under the summary of "re-copyediting". I notice the paragraphs I'd re-written have been reverted so they're wordier than necessary and contain information not necessarily needed in a summary article.

If you want to include info that's "relevant to the show's history and relevant to its present" that's fair enough. If you're going to say that, please actually do so – info about the first Edinburgh task is less notable than the comedians who took part; which I've now added. I've also added info about the inspirations behind the show (plus sources) – more relevant to the show's history than what the first task was. 86.154.155.197 (talk) 15:37, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

"Blanket reverted" is inaccurate as I left the majority of your changes there. It more describes your edit, which included replacing "are not" with the informal and inappropriate "aren't", I assume just because I was the one who changed it from "aren't" to "are not". (Please see WP:CONTRACTION.)

I felt that the first task was a significant fact; it's not really a "summary article" because Wikipedia is not paper, so I felt it could be included. But I don't feel particularly strongly on this, so if you really want it gone then fine. As for the fact about Alex being used frequently in earlier series, and it now being discouraged, I don't understand your objection – it's a fairly substantial change in the rules of the game.

Thank you for your edits, particularly the addition of new sources. I have made uncontroversial changes to them here. — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 16:58, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Pending changes reviewer

Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also:

• Wikipedia:Reviewing pending changes, the guideline on reviewing
• Wikipedia:Pending changes, the summary of the use of pending changes
• Wikipedia:Protection policy#Pending changes protection, the policy determining which pages can be given pending changes protection by administrators.
  

Alex Shih^Talk 15:53, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Rollback

Hi Bilorv, after seeing your edits on my watchlist I have enabled rollback on your account. Keep in mind these things when going to use rollback:

• Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle.
• Rollback should be used to revert clear cases of vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
• Rollback should never be used to edit war.
• If abused, rollback rights can be revoked.
• Use common sense.

If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see Wikipedia:Administrators' guide/Rollback (even though you're not an admin). I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing! Malinaccier (talk) 19:31, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

The End of the F***ing World

Hi Bilorv. Thanks for your additions to the page The End of the F***ing World. Unfortunately, I'm in to view one of the sources as it's subscription-only. I'll keep an eye out for other interviews to support the text: hopefully there will be other sources emerging as the series enjoys more press coverage. Regards, ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 18:36, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

@Dom Kaos: I can assure you it is not original research. There is no requirement for sources to be free or readily available – check out Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Cost. In any case, the source is free – you just need an account. I've removed the tag and am planning to expand that section a bit based on the same source (I was interrupted earlier before I could finish everything I was planning to write). I can quote you parts of the article if you do not believe me, but everything I wrote was based on a reliable source and not a word was my own interpretation. — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 22:50, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

The Shining Soldiers

No idea what I'm doing, but why are you removing useful information from the Black Mirror episodes with the bees? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mandybrigwell (talk • contribs) 19:19, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

@Mandybrigwell: Thanks for your edit, but everything we write on Wikipedia has to be backed up by a reliable source – see Wikipedia:Verifiability. There are a few reasons for this: the simplest is that otherwise people can easily insert untruths and other editors, and readers, need to be able to check what is correct and what isn't. Another key one is significance – Wikipedia doesn't aim to include every possible bit of information that exists, so looking at what reliable sources discuss allows us to easily work out what should and shouldn't be included.

In this case, I'm afraid I doubt a reliable source about the song exists, and therefore we can't mention it in the article, but if you can find an interview, critical review or other reliable source (rule of thumb: something published by someone who was paid to write it), then you can add it back, along with a reference to the source (if you need help with the code for this, just ask, but WP:INCITE gives a basic overview).

Also, one small thing – on talk pages, we need to sign our comments by writing four tildes (~~~~) at the end of our post. — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 22:50, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Virtual Accelerator

@Bilorv I included neutral references in the article [Accelerator]. Could you review and let me know if you see the need for further changes, please? Virakiwi (talk) 17:17, 29 March 2018 (UTC)@Virakiwi

Request on 06:27:46, 1 April 2018 for assistance on AfC submission by Yrarendar

• Yrarendar (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Trafic (journal) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Yrarendar (talk) 06:27, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Dear Bilrov

Thank you for you feedback.

I am a bit confused about your comment with regard to my sources. Are sources from French publications not accepted? I have included 8 sources. In some cases I reference the actual journal because it includes the names of the founder and editor; I also cite the website of the publisher for the purposes of establishing dates (furnished by the publisher) and the names of the founder. Also cited are The Cinemathèque [government institution] (and the Bibliothèque du film [the Library of Film, a government institution]) and more importantly an article published in the prominent French newspaper Le monde. [Le monde as you probably know is the equivalent to the New York Times in the English-speaking world.

I added the entry because when I clicked on Trafic while reading the wikipedia entry on Raymond Bellour (French film theorist - one of the original editorial board members) there was no entry but a request to add an entry. Since I am familiar with the journal and read French fluently, I added the entry. It would be difficult to add an entry on this journal without a knowledge of French. French wikipedia includes an entry: https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trafic_(revue). I found a bit more information than was available in the French entry. I didn't include some information in the entry because of problems with sources. The reference

"La Cinémathèque française - Bibliothèque du film". 2013-05-13. Retrieved 2018-03-31.

was cited in the French wikipedia entry on Trafic; however, when I entered the url into the automatic citation option the address and from were what you see above (in the French version the article is attribute to Axelle Ropert.

Please do let me know what further information I should be providing. I am new to Wikipedia but I have had one article accepted and I am not certain what I am doing differently here in terms of referencing, except that my major references (the article from Le Monde, and the article published on the Cinémathèque/BIFI website) are in French.

Many thanks for you help! I look forward to clarification about my sources.

References

"Editions P.O.L - Trafic 1 - Collectif". www.pol-editeur.com. Retrieved 2018-03-31.
"La Cinémathèque française - Bibliothèque du film". 2013-05-13. Retrieved 2018-03-31.
"[Front Matter]". Trafic. 79: 1. Autumn 2011.
"Editions P.O.L - Trafic 1 - Collectif". www.pol-editeur.com. Retrieved 2018-03-31.
"[Front Matter]". Trafic. 79: 1.
"Serge Daney - Babelio". www.babelio.com (in French). Retrieved 2018-03-31.
"Jean-Claude Biette". IMDb. Retrieved 2018-03-31.
"Vingt ans de "Trafic" au Centre Pompidou". Le Monde.fr (in French). Retrieved 2018-03-31.

Yrarendar (talk) 06:27, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

@Yrarendar: hi there. French language sources certainly are accepted on the English Wikipedia, but I think the article needs a couple more secondary sources before it can be accepted. IMDb is not a reliable source (anyone can edit it) and the Babelio website does not look reliable (it says "Source: Wikipedia", and Wikipedia is obviously something anyone can edit). The references to the journal itself are allowed, but they do not show "notability"—Wikipedia jargon for whether a subject is suitable for inclusion based on our policies. If I'm not mistaken, the only reliable secondary sources in your draft are then to Bifi.fr, and Le Monde, both of which look good, but are not enough on their own to show notability. If you can find another couple of reliable sources like these (and then preferably trim the unreliable IMDb and Babelio content), then this should demonstrate notability. Thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia so far, and just ask if you need any help or you don't understand anything I've said. — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 19:30, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Trafic

I have tried to revise my draft entry on Trafic per your very useful advice. Thanks for taking the time to spell things out. I found another reference for Jean-Claude Biette's death, for which I had used IMDb, which you helpfully indicated was not appropriate. I did wonder about IMDb - I thought that it was reliable because the information is the base for a premium subscription service that offers further details. The public can contribute, but only in certain areas such as plot summaries (which are usually ok but sometimes terrible - Wikipedia tends to be better in this area though still erratic) - these entries from the public are signed, and indicated as such. Not a problem at all because I did find the information elsewhere - but just wondering for future reference. I did also wonder about referencing - is it ok to use the automatic reference option? I noticed that if I use it, the author's name in the case of a newspaper article is often not included. Is it preferable to use the "manual" option and click on the news template? Do let me know if you have any further tips for new users. Again many thanks for your help. It is much appreciated.

Yrarendar (talk) 05:16, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

@Yrarendar: yes, IMDb is a mixed bag – there are some tips on when to use it at Wikipedia:Citing IMDb – but generally if information is on IMDb, there is a more reliable source where it can be found. In general, we have to be careful because it's not too clear which parts are contributed by the public and by professionals (at least not to me; you sound quite familiar with it).

As far as referencing goes, whatever you find most convenient is probably best. The main thing is to give enough information for someone else to find the source; whether you use the "cite news" template or type it manually or use another tool does not matter, as long as the end result is okay. The references you've added are all perfectly fine.

The draft looks good now, and KJP1 has commented that they think it now demonstrates notability, so you can probably resubmit it. — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 13:15, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. I am so impressed by the generosity of more experienced authors who help those new to Wikipedia - such generosity is rare in today's world.

Yrarendar (talk) 00:42, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

No problem, and thanks for your edits. — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 04:01, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Project Euler edits

You deleted two parts of the Project Euler page.

First of all you deleted the part about the OEIS referencing Project Euler. The motivation you are giving for this edit is :you could as well say that PE is referencing the OEIS. This isn't correct. Take for instance https://oeis.org/A147811 : Alexandrian integers. Actually this is a name coined by the Project Euler development team for this problem. You can verify this in several ways. One of them is to look up the relevant PE problem through the link in the OEIS sequence. You can see that the name Alexandrian integers is put between quotation marks to show that it is a name thought up by PE. The other way is to google for Alexandrian integers. So in my opninion it is the OEIS referencing PE and not the other way around. Secondly you deleted the 5 word sentence about sorting problems on difficulty. I fail to see why deleting this 5 word sentence is an improvement of the PE page.

Please consider to revert your edits. Hkleinnl (talk) 12:02, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

@Hkleinnl: hi, and thanks for your message! On the first point, I understand that the Euler Project has caused the addition of entries to OEIS, but the source given is just a link ([3]) to a search engine result! It also turns up plenty of entries that I'm sure you agree were not coined or discovered (or invented) by PE e.g. Stern's diatomic series, Kempner numbers and factorial digit sums. It's just not feasible to go through these 118 results and determine for each one whether the OEIS entry can reasonably be described as "referencing Project Euler problems". (Formally, this sentence is incorrect as, PE is mentioned in the links section not the reference section; informally, we need to consider the sentence's connotations that PE came first and OEIS records it, which are not justified by the source.) This is the problem with using primary sources: note that our policy WP:PRIMARY says "Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation." So this claim would need to be described in a separate source (e.g. news article) for us to be able to include it on Wikipedia, where unfortunately the requirement for inclusion is not of truth but of verifiability.

For the second point, you can also sort by ID, number solved and filter by unsolved or solved. It's just not a big feature to sort by (a heuristic aiming to represent) difficulty. Note that the lead also has higher standards of importance: if this was in a later section describing (briefly) the layout of the website, it would likely be appropriate. — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 12:50, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. For the first part: in my opinion the motivation given for your edit on the history page wasn't correct and a little bit disparaging. Please use a correct and civil motivation the next time. For the second part: when I have time I'll consider to rearrange the lead and move features of the site to a separate section.Hkleinnl (talk) 13:17, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

There's only so much you can reasonably put in an edit summary so I had to summarise my motivation, which I have now explained in full detail (the reason I gave here is exactly what I was thinking when I made the edit). Your contributions and comments are welcome, but please be aware that you do not own the article. — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 13:35, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Please consider to give a motivation on the article's talk page and refer to that in the summary . On the talk page is ample room.Hkleinnl (talk) 14:08, 6 July 2018 (UTC)